Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

theodp writes "After a 17-month wait, 20-year-old Dharun Ravi went on trial Friday for using a remote webcam to spy on an encounter between his roommate and another man in their Rutgers dorm room. The roommate, Tyler Clementi, killed himself days later, jumping off the George Washington Bridge and igniting a national conversation on cyberbullying and gay teen suicide. Ravi is charged with multiple counts of bias intimidation as a hate crime, invasion of privacy and hindering apprehension; he faces up to 10 years in prison and deportation. Defense lawyers on Friday argued that Ravi's actions were the mark of an ignorant teenager, not a hateful homophobe. 'He may be stupid at times,' said Ravi's lawyer. 'He's an 18-year-old boy, but he's certainly not a criminal.' The New Yorker recently offered an in-depth look at the case and the questions it raises. BTW, this might be a good time for Microsoft to retire that Hallway commercial ('Jason gets stranded in the hallway when his roommate is 'tutoring' lady friends in their dorm room. Luckily, with Windows 7, his laptop can now work like an HD DVR. So Jason can entertain himself while waiting. And waiting. Aaand waiting some more.')."

he admits he set up the webcam to record his roommates sexual encounters to prove he was gay and then set out to tell everyone. he's a guilty of a hate crime as if i were him I'd be glad they didn't put a felony charge on there so they could get try and get him on the victim's suicide.

If I try to catch a girlfriend cheating on me and post the video all over the place to show what a slut she is, it's stupid, it's childish, and it's selfish.

But it's not a hate crime.

There is no evidence that he had a general hatred of gays or was persecuting the gay community as a whole. Only that he wanted to "out" his roommate. And as despicable as that may be and as terrible as the end result was, that is NOT a hate crime.

If I try to catch a girlfriend cheating on me and post the video all over the place to show what a slut she is, it's stupid, it's childish, and it's selfish.

But it's not a hate crime.

You are correct, it is not a hate crime.
However, the difference is that in your example you are trying to expose someone's wrong-doing.
In the present case, it was more about trying to humiliate someone for no reason, at best, and as a hateful intolerant act at worst.

If I try to catch a girlfriend cheating on me and post the video all over the place to show what a slut she is, it's stupid, it's childish, and it's selfish.

But it's not a hate crime.

There is no evidence that he had a general hatred of gays or was persecuting the gay community as a whole. Only that he wanted to "out" his roommate. And as despicable as that may be and as terrible as the end result was, that is NOT a hate crime.

The very fact that he wanted to out the guy shows the intent. Would he had do the same thing had the roommate being dating, say, the head cheerleader? I do not think so. I don't think he would have posted the news in twitter, either. He wanted his roommate marked as gay in front of the community, assuming that the community would shun him. That alone makes it a hate crime.

The difference between hate speech and being just an asshole is when being an asshole is so common place that it becomes a social problem. Lets say that this Dharun guy was not worried about his roommate being gay, but by him wearing Star Trek costumes. So he spies on him and "outs" him as a Star Trek fan. Ok, a little weird but there is no really social opinion against trekkies. Nobody would care / gossip / harass about that.

The trouble is that outing him as a gay, in an ambient where homophobic bullying is allowed(*) can really cause a problem. Think that he was not filming a 30 something adult who might give a shit about what his coleagues might think, but another teenager who probably wanted to blend in the crowd. It is really a very different thing.

* Note that I don't say that bullying from a majority or else, but even a very small vocal minority can cause really problems if the rest of the population does not stop them(think of the Scottsboro nutcracks). And we know that bulliers are rarely opposed by those who do not want to become targets.

Perfectly legal acts combined with illegal acts can be consider actions in furtherance of a crime. For example driving the car with the money away from the bank is still a crime even though taking that exact same route for another purpose isn't.

The prosecution is going to have to prove a lot here. I'd rather they stop playing games and charge people engaged in bullying that leads to a death with involuntary manslaughter.

Isn't the whole point of "equal protection under the law" to give us all the same protections of the justice system? Why should it matter who's privacy was invaded, who was beaten, or who was killed? Shouldn't all of these acts of evil be abhorrent in our society regardless of why they were committed? Isn't it hypocritical to cry for "equal rights" and then write laws which are, by definition, unequal? It's a sad, narrow minded overreaction to the injustices of the past.

Hate crime law, like the Jim Crow laws of the last century, are a backward and draconian implementation of justice and social regulation that are a slap in the face to equality. The sooner we stop drawing distinctions like these, the sooner we'll progress to a society that is open and accepting of so called "alternative lifestyles."

Incidentally, what this man did was a horrendous invasion of privacy and fully deserves to be considered a felony. He should be tried in a court of law and regardless of the outcome should be exported (obviously at the end of his sentence if found guilty).

If you kill a man while announcing to a bunch of people, "This could be any one of you, and unless you start acting like I want you to act (or disappear entirely), next time it will be," you have committed a murder. But you have done other things too. You have also threatened a bunch of people with violence.

The legal theory behind hate crimes is that they are like the second case. When you target somebody partially or wholly because of their membership in a group (not just them as a unique individual), you are making an implicit threat against that entire group. When it is a group that has a long history of being targeted with similar violence, your implicit threat carries an especially large capability to intimidate. Hence the need to give special status to hate crimes.

It's not that "being gay" is a hate crime, but otherwise I'd agree. What if it was a married woman being filmed having sex with her illicit lover who killed herself afterwards? It would be exactly the same thing, yet wouldn't be a hate crime.

Outing someone is a hate crime? That makes no sense to me. However, the invasion of privacy is horrible in any case.

No, the only reason it happened was that the victim was suspected of being a homosexual. So your hypothetical quandary simply isn't possible without that suspicion. That was the motivation, and that is both necessary and sufficient to constitute a hate crime considering the motivation was acted upon.

Outing someone is a hate crime? That makes no sense to me. However, the invasion of privacy is horrible in any case.

... So you're argument is that this was clearly an invasion of privacy to prove that the guy was gay, and that if the guy were not suspected of being homosexual, that Ravi would not have had any motivation to film him.

So, it's a crime that is based on a perceived sexual orientation of the victim.

When said invasion of privacy is done with the explicit purpose of humiliating the target, and leads to their suicide days later, then yes, it is an assault (psychological), and should be considered a hate crime. He's lucky he didn't get charged with negligent homicide: he should have known that his actions had consequences, and "not thinking" about those consequences is not an excuse. He's above the age of majority, and can be held legally responsible for his actions, regardless of whether he considered their effect.

Consider: this kid was away from his family, and his parents for the first time. He was just beginning to understand himself as gay, and quite likely had a very conservative family (most gay kids with liberally-minded parents come out long before they go off to University, at least in my experience). His roommate decided to film him having a homosexual encounter for the purpose of outing him, at a time when he was very likely only beginning to understand it himself. Coming out is not a question of waking up one day and saying "dad, I'm gay". First you need to come out to yourself, which can itself be very traumatic, and very difficult, especially if you've lived your whole life being taught that homosexuality is wrong. He was not ready for that kind of realization, and to have it happen in a public forum, on film and quite possibly his first ever, pushed him too far. Left to his own devices, he probably could have come to grips with his homosexuality or discovered a way to deal with it, but he was denied that chance by an act of bigotry. As a reasonable adult, particularly one who is aware of the situation with gay rights in the US, can you possibly tell me straight-faced that this couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the suicide?

Psychological abuse is still abuse, and this was motivated by the fact that he was gay. Whether it was done "for the lulz" or to humiliate him or to cause him actual harm is irrelevant, as the main reason behind it was the fact that he was gay, and that is somehow wrong.

Perhaps next time you should actually read the definition given in the article you link to:

hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

The crime alleged to have occurred is the very definition of "hate crime".

it does not have the person killing themselves because they release of the footage

I don't see why we should treat invasion of privacy and/or bullying any differently when victim commits suicide. It invites future victims to also do the same, in hope that buys heftier penalty for their bully. I don't think that's a good idea.

Well, to be fair, intent plays a big role in many crimes involving people. Wanting to kill someone changes manslaughter to murder. One could argue that the distinction also serves as adding a "thought crime" element to the fact that a person died.

Runaway1956 is an example of what happens when societal pressures force someone into the closet. They end up filled with hatred and bitterness because of their inability to act on their strongest desires. They end up despising what they cannot have.

Why should the law or the government get to mandate good manners? Either something is legal or not. The law has to be blind to everything else. The contract I have with society is that I get my rights in return for my taxes and my compliance with the law. There's no mention of "good manners" anywhere.

It's as if two companies have a contract between them and one of them says "Well, in addition to our agreed clauses, it'll also be 'good manners' if you were to do this, this and this. Otherwise you're an asshole":D

I'm fairly certain taking naked video of people in sexual encounters where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy isn't just bad manners, but probably illegal. Especially if you then go and publish said video to the world. I think the only reason this case might be murky is since they were roommates, Ravi had the right to be in the room and didn't have to break and enter to install a camera.

Still, just because you live in a house doesn't, say, give you the right to record people naked in the bathrooms or having sex in bedrooms and pubish that on the internet without their consent. This is illegal by itself. However, I suspect the penalties aren't particularly harsh.

This doesn't address the hate crime angle of things here. Any time you take naked pictures or sexual pictures of people without permission and post them on the internet to mock them, it's awful. If the video showed a naked guy with a small penis, or a girl fucking a horrendously ugly guy, that could be every bit as embarrassing for the small-dicked man or the woman in question as this was for the homosexual man. What makes the crime awful is that the man in question was obviously depressed and emotionally disturbed to begin with, and these actions resulted in so much embarrassment that they led to suicide. So really it's bullying an emotionally fragile person that's awful, not anything specific about the sexual orientations that makes it a "hate crime".

If the video showed a naked guy with a small penis, or a girl fucking a horrendously ugly guy, that could be every bit as embarrassing for the small-dicked man or the woman in question as this was for the homosexual man.

No, actually, and this goes to show how ignorant you are on GLBT issues.

GLBT individuals don't face "embarrassment." They have to face things like"being disowned by their family""fired from their jobs" "excommunication from their religious communities", and
"being a target of physical violence."

While we should work towards a society where GLBT people don't have to hide - it's still their choice when they come out and to whom.

You know what this was? This was kid who grew up in a country where being gay is illegal, who found himself living with a gay roommate, was really threatened/offended/bigoted, and decided to "out" the kid to get rid of him. Just spend a few minutes with Google - India's views on homosexuality are amongst the most hostile on the planet.

India's views on homosexuality are amongst the most hostile on the planet

India's views on inter-racial marriage, hell even marriage within the same race (as it is socially defined) but outside of your own caste is the most hostile on the planet. For that matter, India's views on just about every social issue are extremely hostile. They make the US look like a bastion of liberal tolerance.

Except for religion. The Indians are famous for tolerating just about every fruity religion that has come along. Things are changing though. They are seem to be slowly opening up to accept more than just their strict traditional values - but she's certainly a big country, I'm sure you could find intolerant nutters there if you wanted to.

They are very tolerant of just about every fruity religion that has come along, but they are highly intolerant of criticism of any other religion.

India has very strict blasphemy laws. To their credit the blasphemy laws are extremely broad and protect minority and majority religions but by western standards they would be considered an infringement of rights.

The whole concept of hate crime is ludicrous. Hate is motive, separate from the crime. If the prosecution can show that the accused hated the person they allege he/she acted against, they have a motive to show the jury which makes their allegation more credible. Making such hatred a separate crime violates equal protection and the basic freedom to think as one pleases regardless of how warped those thoughts may be. Laws are designed to punish actions, not thoughts. Thought crime should be reserved for dystopian fiction. Hate crime laws have been passed to pander to special interest groups and do not serve the public in general.

Hate crimes are a specific class of criminal action. It deals with the motivation for the act as well as the act. You are not prosecuted for the act of hating but rather for the criminal acts that result from that hate. This is not pandering to special interests. It protects everyone from being targeted based on religion, politics, race, sexual orientation, etc.

We punish accidental death differently from premeditated murder. Biblical law would require the death penalty regardless of the circumstances, so w

Because that's what the law does, of course. What else do you think it does? On the sliding scale of human behavior, from benevolent to benign to malicious, we have a sliding scale of laws from incentives (for benevolent behavior), to no law (for most behavior), to civil fines (for mildly bad behavior), to misdemeanors, to felonies, to capital crimes.

Filming someone having sex without their consent goes far beyond "bad manners." Bad manners would have been to knock on the door when you knew what was going on, just to interrupt them. Voyeurism, even without filming, is a type of sex crime. Filming makes it worse. Posting the thing on the internet raises it to a whole extra level of violation of privacy and invasiveness.

The amazing thing is that such simple stuff would need to be explained to anyone.

And, "Oh, gee, sorry Officer. I was just being stupid" isn't a defense. It's not a defense when you claim you didn't see the speed limit sign, and it's not a defense when you trample someone's very reasonable expectation of privacy in their own room.

If you read the New Yorker story you will see that there was no recording. Also, the 1 viewing through a camera was of 2 guys making out, not sex. There was never a recording posted on the internet. There was a plan to have some people spy on this guy through a web cam, but they didn't work out because the guy turned off the computer. So, yeah, not that the guy being charged didn't do something wrong, but your version of the scenario is adding more and more outrageous details to the event that don't seem to be true.

It should be illegal to spy on someone. I agree with this. But it should be a misdemeanor and he should get slapped with probation and a fine, as well as a public apology. WTF is this shit with 10 years and felony hate crime statute usage? It's like this is the same as stringing up someone black in a lynching or beating the shit out of someone who is gay? It's no wonder people oppose hate crimes legislation it's clear this shit can be used for *anything*.

Look, this guy is a grade A douchebag, and should probably have some real penalty for invasion of privacy, but really? What they're trying to do is turn this suicide into a murder case.

Sure, and that's the goal. This whole "cyberbullying" / "hate crime" meme is all about an attempt to off-limit certain types of speech. The fact that the subject killed himself makes this the perfect storm of a way to promote this idea. And the idea is: "You're not allowed to criticize certain people." Sexual orientation minorities are one of those protected classes that are to get this kind of special dispensation. Heterosexuals and fat people are fair game (as Michelle Obama's campaign has made clear [beliefnet.com]), as are pretty much all white people, and old people, too (ageism is never criticized as hateful or bullying, for instance).

So in spite of the portrayal of anti-bullying (and especially "cyber bullying") campaigns as an effort to end reduce suffering of the young and adolescent, the rather obvious true goal is only to protect certain groups against criticism. Note that criticism of Christian beliefs, and those of Mormons, Catholics, and often even Jews is defended as legitimate and never considered "bullying", no matter how inflammatory and hurtful the rhetoric used against them.

Even politicians and law enforcement have started using the terms, claiming that they are being "bullied" by citizens simply for criticizing their public policy actions and decision, and initiating law suits to stop them [muthstruths.com]. This latest movement, to conflate any criticism of government overreach with "anti-government" anarchists or even "paper terrorists" [blogspot.com].

This is a truly frightening development, that will lead inevitably to the erosion of free speech to such a degree that the only thing recognized as "free speech" will be a narrowly-defined set of "approved speech".

The reason we have hate crimes is because a hate-crime isn't a crime against an individual it's a threat against an entire community to restrict their freedom.

If you murder an African American *because of their race* then you are threatening a group with the same. By the way, Christians are protected too. If someone roughed up a Christian for being Christian then they would be subject to a Hate Crime.

Hate crimes are to *PROTECT* freedom of speech. If someone was attacking people of a specific political position because of their political position then you are stifling an entire organization's ability to spread their message.

Standing on the street corner saying God Hates Fags is not a hate-crime. But if they started slashing tires of open gay's cars then they would be intimidating and threatening a community because of their sexual orientation.

In this instance a crime was committed and it was committed for the sole reason that his roommate was gay. And obviously the invasion of privacy was sufficiently damaging that his roommate committed suicide. The fact that you seem to think that what was done is similar to Jesus being compared to a sky fairy shows just how little understanding you have of the persecution many minorities face. I've never heard of a Christian committing suicide because of inflammatory rhetoric against Christianity. It's not because Christians have thicker skin, it's because as a minority group people are far more *vulnerable* to attack. And the effects are far more dangerous as a result. If you threaten someone like me, a straight white upper middle class man because I'm white I can easily find justice and I'm unlikely to let it intimidate me... after all, just about everyone else I come in contact with is a lot like me. If however though you're a minority then the intimidation is very real since you're far more likely to be discriminated against and you have far less support--people like you to help defend your rights. Now it would be great if we lived in a society where none of that mattered and people defended minorities regardless of their own race but by and large that's not how the real world works outside of a libertarian fantasy land. In the real world people tend to look after people like themselves and aren't concerned with the problems of the "others". So if you're a harassed gay citizen then the number of people who are likely to stand up for you is a small minority. And if people threaten your peers with violations of your privacy and expose you to harassment and intimidation by others--you're going to get even more isolated and distrustful.

By the way:

Of the 6,934 identified hate crime offenders, the majority were white (4,317, or 62.3%); 1,286 (18.5%) were black, 61 (0.9%) were American Indian or Alaskan Native, 93 (1.3%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 741 (10.7%) were of unknown race, and the remaining 436 (6.3%) were of other races or multiple races.

This whole "cyberbullying" / "hate crime" meme is all about an attempt to off-limit certain types of speech

I doubt there is a conspiracy lurking here. Don't get me wrong, I'm generally against hate crime laws, or special protections for minorities, but I can see where the advocates for such things come from. We Americans have a very bad track record (and still generally do) at treating anyone but white, male, straight, Christians as equals. We have a strong history of being assholes to anyone not like us. We have a very strong trend of not recognizing the rights people slightly different than us (and the 51% of the population who aren't men). This is coupled with out history of being, and glorifying, idiotic, bigoted, rednecks, and endorsing old-boy networks and turning our backs on some truly heinous things. So we DO need to be vigilant, and we should be very careful to NEVER tolerate bigots, racists, homophobes (which is a bit silly of a term, since it isn't fear that's the problem, its violence and hate), and we, as a society should go out of our way to make these people feel unwelcome.

This, again, doesn't mean I agree with these laws, or especially their applicability here.

Also our society has pretty much proven that we can no longer be expected to be civilized to one another, which does make some people desperate for any solution, including legal ones. I don't agree with them, at least on the solution, but again I can see why they want it. I think society, not the government, should make these people's lives a living hell.

Heterosexuals and fat people are fair game (as Michelle Obama's campaign has made clear [beliefnet.com]), as are pretty much all white people, and old people, too (ageism is never criticized as hateful or bullying, for instance).

Oh yes, my life as a hetero white male is SO TOUGH, especially compared to those privileged gay people. Just the other day I had a bunch of nice Christian fundies scream at me that I'm going to hell because I live with a woman. I hear that the gays, the blacks, the Mexicans, and a coalition of skinny Muslim women are about to throw all the straight white Christian men into camps!

Xenophobia is stupid. No one is out to get you. As a straight white guy, I can't even recall the last time I was discriminated against. I'm not aware of any time in my life, actually. Sure, I've had issues with people (socially, not legally), but that was 100% because of choices I made (which is why I don't feel too bad about obese people, though I'm not aware of any actual discrimination there either), so I'm at fault.

Note that criticism of Christian beliefs, and those of Mormons, Catholics, and often even Jews is defended as legitimate and never considered "bullying", no matter how inflammatory and hurtful the rhetoric used against them.

Actually I can criticize anyone's faith I damn well want to, it isn't' a crime, and no one has ever been prosecuted for it. Sure, it might not be socially acceptable, but that is different. As an atheist, I've gotten plenty of flack for criticizing Christians. Hell, there is around 100 fundamentalist churches within a mile of my house (no exaggeration), and my girl friend has been threatened with physical assault for having a bumper sticker saying "honk if you think I'm Jesus". Poor Christians.

This is a truly frightening development, that will lead inevitably to the erosion of free speech to such a degree that the only thing recognized as "free speech" will be a narrowly-defined set of "approved speech".

How many people have been arrested for stating "I don't like Gays/Women/Blacks/Mexicans/Hindus/Muslims"? You can be a bigot and a xenophobe vocally all day long, and no one will knock down your door. Our society, to its credit, will look down on you, and people will ostracize you... but to me that is called progress. It makes hopeful, actually.

Bullying is typically a larger or stronger party attacking a smaller or weaker party.

What's the justification for jailing someone for spying on an intimate encounter, then? He's not "smaller or weaker", and the spy had no significant power over him. Why is the perpetrator facing 10 years in jail for this offense? It seems far out of proportion, and the only mitigating circumstance seems to be that the victim committed suicide. Somehow the spying incident is being linked to the motivation for suicide. Would that have happened if he was heterosexual and was caught in an encounter with a

Ravi would be facing these charges even without hate crime legislation

He would be facing some pretty minor charges, not a 10 year jail sentence. There was no evidence of any violence or fraud or harrassment by Ravi.

Giving a higher sentence to crimes due to various circumstances of the crime was already very common prior to Hate Crime laws.

There are no "special circumstances" - there is only "special groups", "protected groups", and "groups that are better" or something. That's not a circumstance. It's special privileges based on discrimination, and it violates equal protection under the law.

He would be facing some pretty minor charges, not a 10 year jail sentence. There was no evidence of any violence or fraud or harrassment by Ravi.

Steal enough candy bars, and you could rack up enough misdemeanor charges to be put in jail for years, even though the individual acts alone would only carry a small amount of time individually.

There are no "special circumstances" - there is only "special groups", "protected groups", and "groups that are better" or something. That's not a circumstance. It's special privileges based on discrimination, and it violates equal protection under the law.

No, it doesn't and this is well established by the courts. If you want to get this tried, then become the victim of a hate crime because you're white/male/christian/whatever, and when they don't push for hate crime charges, THEN you can pull out violations of the the equal protection clause.

Let me give you an example of how "special circumstances" work. You walk into a barn, and there is a guy there, and you pick up a hammer and beat his head in until he's dead. If you brought the hammer, then it's first degree murder, if you just picked it up, then it's second degree murder. If you killed a police officer, knowing it were a police officer, then it's a special circumstances that in many cases is the only way that the prosecution is allowed to seek the death penalty.

There are tons of "special circumstances", and people get all hissy about this hate crime stuff, because "zOMGs, teh minorities are getting special privileges!!!" NO! They're NOT! They're getting recognition that some people are willing to commit crimes upon people just because of racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever, and that such behavior is wrong, and deserves to be called out, and punished, while at the same time, we need to recognize that if we're going to punish the behavior, the behavior has to be a crime in the first place.

If the legislature wanted to pass a "special circumstance" about committing a crime while being an asshole, or something like that, then it would be fine. And recall, hate crime legislation allows for PERCEIVED fitting of a class of people, it does not require that the person actually be part of that class of people, because again: hate crime legislation is not about the victim, it's about the intent of the criminal.

The gay community needs to get over themselves. I'm starting to hate the gay community not because they're gay, but because they slam out stupid lawsuits like this that try to paint EVERYTHING as "hate crimes" when they're not. The gay community wanted us out of their bedrooms. Fine. They got their way. Now get the hell out of our court rooms.

This is about as ignorant as saying "the gay community has an agenda to do ". I'm a gay man and, I was not invited to the committee which decided what the prosecutor was going to charge Ravi for. I've never written any legislation which created the idea of a "hate crime" in the first place. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there was no mob of gay people at the court house unilaterally deciding the charges brought against Ravi and "slamming lawsuits" against Ravi.

I am sure that he didn't jump because he was videotaped by one asshole. It was most probably that he feared the reaction of others when it leaks... the reason was the homophobic society rather then one particular guy. I would say that the society's attitude killed him. What would be the label for the society then?

The only blame in this is on the guy that set up the webcam. And that charge should be violation of privacy. Period.The very notion of hate crimes is dangerous. It essentially criminalizes feelings. That's one huge Orwellian road to go down, and it opens a Pandora's box of hellish proportions.

If someone murders, charge them with murder. If someone beats someone else, charge them with assault. Let that be the end of it.

> I ain't scared of homos, but I don't want them around me.First part of this sentence clearly contradicts the other part. You simply say that "excomunication" (not having "others" around) is what you prefer.

Did you know that for social beings the excomunication from the society is in fact even worse then death? Why would you wish anybody such as horrific punishment if you are not a homophobe?

To me it looks like you are the typical homophobe.:-) Sorry if I am wrong but there is no other way I can expla

The "great" thing about hate crimes laws is that you can never have too many of them. There are so many minorities and victimized groups out there, and we can always use the media to create new ones. The perfect way to tack a few extra years onto a prison sentence and fatten the wallets of the prison industry's investors.

If you actually knew what the hell you were talking about, you would know that even members of a majority class can also be considered victims of hate crimes.

If a black, lesbian, muslim woman murders a white, straight, christian man and makes it clear that she is doing it because her victim is white/straight/christian/male, that's a hate crime.

See, the reason hate crimes are considered aggravated offenses is because their intent is to instil fear in the entire class of people they target in order to have an adverse affect on that entire class of people.

So, you're entirely wrong about how hate crimes work - you only need one definition to cover any potential class of victim because potentially anyone can be a victim of a hate crime.

Now let's talk about why you're wrong about how hate crimes as you imagine them to be are the perfect way to tack a few extra years onto prison sentences:

What's the conviction rate for offenders of color vs. white offenders? What's the average sentence length, by conviction type, for both offenders of color and white offenders? In your fantasy world, it's only minorities and victimized groups who are able to be victims of hate crimes, and so, according to your theory, we should see sentence lengths for white offenders be higher than for offenders of color for the same offense (if it's so "easy" to tack on and if the overriding goal is to "tack a few extra years onto a prison sentence"), and possibly higher rates of conviction of white offenders.

Yet we don't. What we see are that defendants of color are vastly more likely to be convicted, and when convicted, offenders of color are given typically longer sentences. When adjusted for other factors - usually economic - the gap is slightly lessened but still quite present.

So, you're wrong about the intent and effect of hate crimes, too. Everything in your post is incorrect.

Perhaps you'll take this as an opportunity to re-examine your views on the subject and see if they match up with actual reality rather than what you imagine reality is.

Actually, you're right about one thing in your post - for-profit prisons are an abomination and should not be allowed in a society that considers itself civilized. There should never be a profit motive for subverting justice.

And this isn't a "hate crime", this is a "WTF MY ROOMMATE'S GAY?!" You're 17, you're in your college dorm, and you suddenly find out the man sleeping in the bed next to you likes men. Mind. Blown.

So you are saying that the fault here is with the university not allowing easy room changes based on orientation and sexual preferences? If the homophobe were given sufficient support services, would he have felt it necessary to try to humiliate his roomie?

Bull-fucking-shit. The vast majority of crime is all about money or some other gain and has nothing to do with hate at all. These guys outed this guy in a huge public way, knowing full well the stigma associated with all of it, and knowing full well it could ruin his life. "hug and run liberal establishment"??...what the fuck does that even mean?

We are starting to get into the idea that there are different sorts of hate and different degrees of it. Hate against a protected class (say, a minority) is a different level of hate under this thinking. Clearly different from the sort of hate that many African Americans have against white people because they have been brought up to believe that all white people are slavers and want nothing more than to re-enslave the black race.

No, sorry, you don't get to do that. Hate is hate. It is a destructive emotion but it is little more than emotion. Once we start prosecuting hate we are a short way away from prosecuting "conservatism" which to many is far more destructive than hate. Any internal throught process is then fair game regardless of its expression in actions. As much as I would like to prosecute Pollyanna-ish liberals for their beliefs in a "go along to get along" world, it is not the way to organize a society unless one is actively striving for 1984. Because if it were possible to do such prosecutions, you can bet it would be fashionable to prosecute all sorts of undesirable attitudes or the "wrong sort of thinking."

Once you start prosecuting people for what they believe, trouble is bound to follow. And by definition "hate crimes" are clearly prosecuting someone for what they believe or are thinking.

If you want to make the world safe for homosexuals, the place to start is not with what people are thinking but what they are doing. Simlarly, if you want to make the world safe for Jews "enhancing" sentances for swastica-painters because of what they believe is not the right way to do it. Instead, increase the penalties for external actions - like painting a swastica - which is something at least everyone can see.

You have equated "crimes are motivated by a mindset" with "all crimes are motivated by hate". To do so is to equate thinking, with hating. That is wrong, so wrong that I have to assume you didn't really mean it (except that you've said it twice now). As so many others have pointed out, most crimes are motived by things other than hate, such as greed. So I assume you are trying to equate "a criminal feeling greed" with "a criminal hating a person who has what the criminal wants". Is that what you are trying to do? If so, then I have to disagree strongly. To do so would be to reject many ways of distinguishing hate from other forms of thought.

not quite. The point of hate crimes is to distinguish a heated argument in a bar leading someone to punching the other assault and a guy cornering someone in alley and beating the shit out of him cuz of his race or perceived orientation/religion/etc.

One of those deserves just having the cops splitting them up and the other jailtime.

One of those deserves just having the cops splitting them up and the other jailtime.

Really? Why does one deserve jailtime and the other does not? Why do only some victimized groups get this special protection? Do you see WoW "nerds" getting special protection from bullying, the way homosexuals do?

Hate crimes laws are another way to increase our prison population, without being as overt as the war on drugs. The pattern is familiar: first, the media lets everyone know about the terrible things being done to some particular group; then people lobby for that group to be included in hate crimes laws, with the media pointing to the progress being made by such lobbying; then the laws are amended so that another group receive this special protection. Meanwhile, society goes on victimizing other groups, using various slurs and expressions, and ignoring their plight -- people say they were "gypped" all the time, but nobody bats an eye at it (now imagine if someone said they were "nigged").

Now homosexuals are the victim group de jour, and in 20 years it will be another group. The great thing is that the media can actually seed hatred for a group, then return decades later to talk about the plight of that group (sometimes without even stopping their own encouragement of the hate). While the media was trumpeting the progress of laws to protect black people, it was simultaneously stoking the flames of fear and hatred by portraying black men as dangerous criminals. The media keeps telling us that we should respect homosexuals and treat them like everyone else...and then portrays gay men as particularly effeminate or somehow not being as masculine as straight men.

If you dare question the special legal treatment of homosexuals, you are a homophobe -- and in a particularly ironic twist, you might be accused of being a closet homosexual (by the same people telling you not to harass people for being gay). Naturally, the opinion of a homophobe on these topics is totally irrelevant, whereas the opinions of someone arguing to lock homophobes in prison for long periods of time are important to the conversation.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem here. We are not addressing the problem (the victimization of particular groups), we are just expanding the size of the prison population. Hate crimes laws are worse than knee-jerk reactions: hate crimes laws have been carefully planned out.

Blacks beating up a white should be treated just as harshly as vice versa

Just like non-nerds beating up nerds. The crime is beating someone up; what difference does it make if it was motivated by hatred of a person's race as opposed to their lifestyle, hair color, academic success, or any of dozens of other reasons that people beat each other up? The problem with hate crimes legislation is that it unfairly labels some forms of hatred as being categorically worse than others, and that this labeling is almost always politically motivated.

It makes a difference because of the relative danger to society. If someone is beating you up because they don't like you then they are less of a threat to the general public than if they beat you up because you're the nearest available member of a certain group.

The difference between a hate crime and a bar fight is that one is that neo-nazis who have beaten up a black man think that they have some duty to beat up black men. A bar fight is typically the result of intoxication and impulsive emotions. After the incident, the people who were fighting will probably have regrets and remorse, while the neo-nazis will proclaim that the police are being controlled by jews or some such and that they were/are trying to preserve the moral fabric of society by assaulting minorities. Even beyond the simple fact that the neo-nazis are more likely to go back out and organize more attacks, there's a line between what can be considered an accident or a poor decision and a conscious, willful attempt to hurt people.

"Do you see WoW "nerds" getting special protection from bullying, the way homosexuals do?"

Yes.

Where do you live? Here in the United States, hate crimes are defined as crimes motivated by particular categories -- race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. Being a "nerd" of any sort is not in that category.

I'm honestly curious, do you think that Western criminal jurisprudence should discard the foundational notion of intent in the definition and prosecution of crime?

How about applying it equally? We do not -- hate crimes legislation defines particular categories of hatred that receive sentencing enhancement, and in practice even those categories are only selectively considered. Which particular victim groups receive this specia

Where do you live? Here in the United States, hate crimes are defined as crimes motivated by particular categories -- race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

I admit that I am not a criminal lawyer. My understanding fits the wiki description:

"In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation

Do you really think there is any hate crime law out there that says crimes against white people are not so bad? Do you really think the laws are written so that a black person who punches you to 'teach whitey his place', or a gay guy who punches you because "breeders are pond-scum, and I'm gonna get them all before the get me" can't be charged with a hate crime? Please read what the actual laws say. If the law in your area actually marks you out as not being a member of a protected class, then by all means

The funny thing is, all crimes against another person are hate crimes.

No, they're not.The difference between a "crime" and a "hate crime" is intent.

There is an enormous difference betweenA) killing someone by accident (manslaughter)B) killing someone during the commission of a crime (murder)C) killing someone because they are different from you (murder + hate crime enhancement)

Again, hate crimes are about intent. They are usually based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin.Our legal system does not always apply the law equally to all groups, but the law itself is neutral.If you look at the history of hate crime law, these crimes would create tension and cycles of retaliation in neighborhoods.There are strong reasons behind enhancing the punishment for certain crimes over others.Maybe some day we won't need those laws, but America is still struggling with basic things like equality for all.

Motivation and intent are different things. In a hate crime murder and a non-hate crime murder the intent is the same: to kill. In a manslaughter, the intent to kill was not present even though that was the end result.

The funny thing is, all crimes against another person are hate crimes. Putting a special label on them is stupid and obtuse.

Actually, "hate crime" is a serious misnomer, and it leads to misunderstandings like this. "Hate crimes" aren't crimes of passion; they're more akin to *treason* because they're crimes against liberty.

Suppose you roll into town for the KKK meeting, and you pick out a black family's house at random for a cross burning. You have nothing in particular against the people living in that house. Although you're a racist, it doesn't even mean you can't have *cordial* relationships with individual blacks *as long as they stay in their place*. So the cross burning isn't particularly directed to the people living in the house. It's a message to *everyone*: *I* get to decide who lives where. *I* get to decide how you worship God. *I* get to decide what opinions you can express.

And anyone who doesn't play by *my* rules had better look out.

This gets complicated because these crimes often mixed with personal hatred; that's the reason for the misnomer. When you lynch a black guy for dating a white woman, you surely have *particular* hatred directed at that man. But you're also saying "*I* get to decide who sleeps with who," and *that's* the part of your act that's crime against liberty. The intention isn't just to hurt the man you hate, but to strike fear into anyone who doesn't live the way you think they should.

I don't think that the action (suicide) is warranted by the crime (published observation). Don't get me wrong - it's a totally creepy thing to do, and it's not up to me to judge what motivates anyone, but if *that's* what it takes for you to commit suicide, well, then you've got other problems ahead of you.

Most of us agree that suicide is rarely warranted by any but the most extreme circumstances. Of course, suicide is especially terrible because it is obviously unwarranted, from the viewpoint of those of us who aren't suicidal. I think that's the crux of the issue: some people taunt and bully the suicidal, because they don't share the human empathy the rest of us feel for that kind of person. Thus, to drive a suicidal person to suicide is so disgusting, that we have crimes for it.

I've read a few articles about this, and it's clear that Ravi did invade upon Tyler's privacy, and should be punished for it. But I haven't seen any evidence presented that he bullied or intimidated Tyler, let alone did so for homophobic reasons. Either the prosecution is saving it for the trial, or the DA is trying to make an example with bullshit charges (probably to look tough on cyberbulling leading up to an election year).

Knowing the US society at large is still quite homophobic, at least to a great part, do you REALLY think that outting a male making out with anotehr male has no homophobic connotation ? It would have gone nowwhere if it was two hetero, and chance is that the guy would not have published it or the hetere male would simply have garnered brownie point. But you have to be utterly blind to not see that outting homo male , was done with the intention of damage. It usually *always* is.

I cannot dispute that this guy is a complete asshole and should certainly be punished in someway. Deported at a minimum. Not so sure about prison though. I have a hard time believing he envisioned the room mate killing himself. Either way, he gets to live with that.

For me, the real question is fundamental. Why, in the modern "free" world does being outed as a homosexual cause one to prefer suicide rather than live with the shame?As a society, would it not be better to address such a fundamental social problem than to simply treat the symptoms?

=== For me, the real question is fundamental. Why, in the modern "free" world does being outed as a homosexual cause one to prefer suicide rather than live with the shame?As a society, would it not be better to address such a fundamental social problem than to simply treat the symptoms? ===

You are aware that Rick Santorum has a significant chance of being nominated for President by a major political party in the United States, and thus given the affect of random events such as blips in the economy or oil pr

I've followed this case with interest mainly because it seemed to be a perfect storm. The timing coincided with highly-publicized teen suicides and increased focus on (cyber) bullying. The initial media reports implied the existence of a "sex tape", an outing and broadcast video. There was a terse suicide status update posted on Facebook. It tapped into people's fears about and unfamiliarity with technology. The mystery surrounding the older hookup, M.B. (that part of the story really didn't seem to be examined) Perhaps the story resonated with me because I remember pranks like this in my college years... It's interesting to see lives ruined today over something I would have potentially done or experienced when I was younger.

Reading through the New Yorker article and other accounts since the incident, it seems that Dharun Ravi's actions and tone were consistent with how kids interact with each other these days. Being jackasses online, boasting to his peers and just juvenile behavior. But isn't that reflected in popular culture (Reality TV, Tosh.0, TMZ, etc.)? He and Tyler did not communicate well, and I think those soft-skills are missing among today's youth. In a world of tweets, Facebook, blogs and other online communities, we also leave quite a trail... Maybe that's the biggest lesson here. Neither of them seemed to have a filter. Unprotected Twitter accounts, posting openly in webcam/porn/sex communities, bringing an older hookup back to the dorm... I think there needs to be more education about maintaining your online identity.

As to the case, it seems as though Tyler was troubled long before college. There was a mention of his fascination with the G.W. Bridge, as well as issues coming from a conservative family life. Maybe Ravi's actions had no influence on Clementi's suicide. There's a bit of immaturity on both sides as well. I think "sexiling" your roommate multiple times so early in the school year, is extremely disrespectful. That goes regardless of sexual orientation. I had roommates in college who brought questionable partners home for hookups. But we at least had an understanding, and it was certainly after we had a chance to get to know one another. But maybe Tyler was experimenting and taking advantage of his relative freedom? There's no harm in that, but it illustrates more about his home and family life than anything else.

The webcam angle also seems overblown. Dharun was most-likely venting about being booted from the room, but relishing the fact that the drama provided a attention/bragging opportunity. He may have also been trying to demonstrate his tech-prowess. But as the New Yorker article referenced, there was "no posting, no observed sex, and no closet."

Homophobic? Hate crime? I don't think so. I just think there was an extreme lack of respect and understanding between the two. But the case has been politicized and we'll have to see how it plays out...

What does this have to news for nerds whatsoever? I'll tell you the answer: nothing.

Actually, many of us nerds were bullied in school. I, for one, was bullied and appreciate hearing society put some pressure on bullies. This very egregious example of bullying deserves the light of day.

The funny thing is if you read the majority of posts they are defending the 'bully' as doing nothing wrong. Why? Because in this case it appears the bully also has some nerdish qualities and was able to use a remote control something or other to spy. I wonder what this thread would have looked like if it were a member of the lacrosse team peering through a window with his dime a dozen cell phone cam at some people at a Linux users group.

"Political correctness" = I can no longer get away with openly hurling vicious insults at groups of people I dislike, and my fee fees are hurt because I am now publicly called out for being vicious; I want to go back to the days when I could bully with impunity.

Nobody is criminalizing words. Instead, the action of uttering some of them sometimes is a crime.

So?

The fantasy that words and actions are two totally different and separate things is just that, a fantasy. You can with words alone get someone to lose their job and friends and have them starve to death. But hey, it's just words! That guy who threw those Kool-Aid parties? Just words! And even the scrawniest geek could have knocked out Adolf Hitler, that joke of a man. Yea, verily, I speaketh unto you: when it

"The legal system should not be considering thoughts but only actions."

Really? So manslaughter = murder? You might want to rethink this. The whole idea of "Mens Rea", or what the person is thinking is integral to the entire criminal justice system in the US. If I hit you with my car and you die, it should not make a difference if I was trying to mow you down or you jumped out from behind a car and there was no way for me to see you? Without considering thoughts those two actions are the same.

This. Someone throw a modpoint for parent, please -- Wish I had modpoints.

GP's comment was worse than wmelnick implied, actually: it pretended that this whole 'requisite intent' / Mens Rea thing is a newcomer to legal decisions that's getting stronger due to political correctness. That's absurd.

As for GP's rant against political correctness: Earlier this week, a devoutly religious coworker openly chortled about a news story showing an uptick in Hep C infections/deaths. Said they bring it on themselves. I

Still though, Clementi obviously believed that what he was doing was shameful and wrong, and he killed himself for it. If anybody "shares blame" for Clementi's suicide, it's the "gay rights" advocates.